Debate At Baruch, The Pros And Cons Of Term Limits

While the NYC Bar Association condemned the Mayor today for trying to overturn term limits by legislative fiat, the term limit debate itself is being revived across the city. Here at Baruch College, several esteemed citizens of New York have come together to talk about the current situation and the issue as a whole. The public forum was put together by Common Cause of New York, Citizens Union and NYPIRG. All three organizations are against the Mayor's way of doing things but the panelists are sitting in the room representing many different perspectives on the matter.

Professor Richard Briffault started things off and brings his "Professor of Legislation" at Columbia to the table, as well as his consultancy work to the Charter Revision nearly twenty years ago. He addresses many issues concerning term limits and that there are pros and cons to both sides of the matter.

Councilwoman Reyna spoke to how a legislator works within the system. As Chair of the Rules Committee, she's a powerful member on the Council and has been a strong advocate for the low to middle class constituents in her district (34th - Queens/Brooklyn). She says that the Mayor is using the Council as a "punching bag" to hammer this through even though he could have sought a referenda before 2008.

Randy Mastro went next and as Deputy Mayor under Giuliani, has a working knowledge of the city's Executive branch. He says whether or not you agree with term limits, the process matters and that this action by Bloomberg will be found to be illegal. He advocates for a public referendum that could be on the ballot by early 2009, long before candidates must petition to get on the ballot. Mastro is worried that Bloomberg's push for this legislation is being rushed with no good reason other than, what seems to be pure politics. He even goes as far to say that Bloomberg owes his own tenure as Mayor to term limits. Mastro is passionately against hizzoner's plan, but at least in the opening round he does not address the question of term limits sans Bloomberg.

Mitchell Moss is an Urban Policy Professor at NYU and says at the outset he'll address the issue. He's clearly against them, mentioning that only consultants and campaign fundraising benefits from term limits. Elected officials need time in office to learn how government works. Also that in special elections low turnouts produce motivated voters that can affect great change if certain groups are mobilized to do so. Due to that, he argues that the Council's determination to vote on the current term limit legislation is at least as representative as a referenda. As for the third point, he really didn't get to it, but his message was clear, we should get rid of term limits, period.

Now Councilman Fidler gets his five minutes. He starts off addressing the fiscal crisis and how this is more important than term limits (I agree). He takes pride in opposing Bloomberg repeatedly and even endorsing Freddy Ferrer. He is sick of the billionaire's involvement in this and how the debate was presented by the Mayor. However, he's been against term limits throughout and will vote to change the charter by a Council vote regardless. Term limits give too much power to lobbyists, bureaucrats and staff members. "This isn't Poli Sci 101, this is the real world," says Fidler. As passionately as Randy Mastro is against the change, Fidler is for it. The Councilman then smacked Mastro's arguments and brought up his advocacy for pay raises to counter the Conflicts of Interest Board petition against the current legislation.

Esmeralda Simmons rounds out the panel. Her experience as a civil rights and a voting rights attorney leads her to believe that Bloomberg is using the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protest a special election is "baloney." Ultimately the Justice Department rules on this but her faith in the current Administration (on the Federal level) isn't so strong in meting out a fair decision. She is most ashamed about this being a controlled act. She does not want the voters to be duped and does not believe the Mayor is being truthful about the process. She prefers a referenda over the Council's vote but in a perfect world a general election should ask this question.

Now back to the questions. Councilman Bill de Blasio stood up and addressed the members of the panel, praising all of them. He is a well known opponent of Bloomberg's legislation but says it is a "democracy question." He "honestly feels that our democracy is threatened" due to the Mayor's extreme power and ability to undermine public debate on the issue. Ultimately Bloomberg's wealth gives him immense power in an election against those who aren't billionaires.

Gene Russianoff asks the second question about why this is such an important issue. Councilman Fidler says this is a political question and that those who have the most to gain or lose are speaking with greatest volume. Funny enough, as Fidler mentions this, a member of the audience shouted out that the Councilman's term is up next year (makes you wonder about what Fidler has to lose, eh?). Moss backs him up and adds that it isn't like 2001 in that people can vote to re-elect Bloomberg and not keep him longer like Giuliani had wanted. Mastro is still shocked at the speed of the legislation going into the Council and again reaffirms the will of the voters. Councilwoman Reyna favors legislative action and seems to go off from her "undecided" stance, claiming that the people can decide things in next year's election. Fidler follows her up with more theater. Simmons then wonders if any of the Councilmembers have polled their district to see how the public feels.

Finally a new question is segmented in, Gene and Susan ask why can't the people have more of a say? Fidler quotes a poll that people want term limits rescinded for Bloomberg and he's only gotten 24 calls about the matter. He doesn't legislate by poll and that's that, even though he mentions lots of numbers. Mastro then follows up by saying that people are generally opposed to career politicians and institutions but no so much the individuals that fill those seats. He counters that legislative responsibility is also about being willing to respond to your constituents and that it has happened before where the Council asked the people to vote on an issue.

Now Susan Lerner turns it over to the audience's questions, only thirty-five minutes after the schedule says it'll start.

The first guy is against term limits, but against Bloomberg's plan and disappointed in the Council not being able to reframe the debate and that he wants an education debate and not a soundbite tidal wave financed by billionaires like Bloomberg, Lauder and (most likely) Golisano. Reyna whines about the situation and everyone tells her to propose a bill to change the debate and then Fidler breaks in to continue his pro-term limit theater. Professor Briffault calls for more time so that the issue can be better studied and digested by the people.

Council candidate Yetta (inaudible) for the 3rd District gets up next and wonders how the current Council rationalizes their vote when most New Yorkers are in favor of keeping term limits. Moss goes back to the argument that the Council has the power to change the charter regardless of previous referenda as well as the fact that seventy-five people showed up for this forum.

PDA and DFNYC member Scott (inaudible) rails on Quinn and says that we as voters have no representation, so will they vote against Quinn if she is re-elected to a third term to Speaker again. Reyna promptly gives him a "no."

Many questioners will follow but I wonder if the debate over term limits got anywhere tonight. A lot of words were said but mostly about the current situation and not the philosophical question on having term limits. Fidler answered that best, saying no, no, no. Most of the panel was against term limits but solidly opposed to what Bloomberg was doing. One thing that wasn't answered was about the good things of term limits. Does it help democracy or not? The power of incumbency was rarely addressed by the panel and perhaps a sit down with Professor Briffault would answer that better. The theater was certainly great and I loved de Blasio's entrance in the middle of it. If the fireworks here were any indication of what will go down at the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday, then that will be an even greater show.

Ah, well my battery is in the red and it is time for dinner outside this very spacious conference room at Baruch.